Environmental Information Regulations

Disclosure Log - Environmental Information Regulations

Prior to April 2026 EIR responses have been incorporated into FOI Responses for the service type.

2026

May

Reference: 4005469

Subject:

I am contacting you in regards to a coordinated change seeking to modernise a busy portion of airspace in the centre of the UK called the Manchester Terminal Manoeuvring Area, which is made up of airspace changes from East Midlands, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester Airport.

Part of this change involves the upgrade of arrival and departure routes for each of these airports below 7,000ft, which will be achieved through an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) which follows the seven-stage CAP1616 process (more information on this can be found here.)

Part of the process involves undertaking aircraft noise assessments which must take into account any planned residential developments (as well as other sensitive property types listed below) which have been granted consent within potentially impacted districts, as well as any known housing provision allocated within local development frameworks, or contained in emerging draft Local Plans.

Accordingly, I am reaching out to you as your district has been identified as potentially impacted by one or more of the airport’s ACP changes.

We require information on planned developments (with consent granted since 1st May 2024) in your district for the following property types:

Residential (Large-scale developments of over 20 dwelling units only)
Schools
Hospitals
Places of worship (any denomination)
Care-homes (no minimum size)

Please ensure any developments listed include the application reference number, site address/location, description of development/proposals, decision date and appeal decision date (if applicable). Having regards to the PS2 codes used for your government returns, we believe these developments are likely to fall under the following codes: N01, N02, N05, N06, N07, N08, N11, N12, N17, N18, N20.

Response date: 6 May 2026

Response: Response to this request - 4005469.

April

Reference: 3985546

Subject:

I write in relation to the proposed Gamston Fields development and recent online correspondence regarding the underground pipeline noted within the site.

We wish to express support for the Council’s careful and evidence-based approach in considering all potential infrastructure constraints, including the pipeline referenced in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which states:

“There is an underground pipeline running on a broadly north-south axis through the site, predominantly to the west of Tollerton Lane which has a 3 m easement either side, all development must be located outside of the easement.”

We note that the SPD identifies the presence of the easement and correctly advises that development should avoid this corridor. It is, however, important to clarify that the SPD does not confirm ownership or confer rights to any third party over the land or the pipeline itself.

Based on publicly available information, the pipeline is reported as being owned by Mainline Pipeline Limited, with a dedicated contact line (0800 7560804) for asset protection enquiries. Accordingly, any claims by East Midlands Pipeline (EMP) to ownership or easement rights over the pipeline at present appear prospective and contingent upon completion of a formal acquisition.

EMP has stated that it is “in the process of finalising purchase” of the pipeline asset and intends to repurpose it for hydrogen transportation.

This raises a significant inconsistency: EMP’s claims of ownership, easement rights, and stakeholder status appear contingent upon a future acquisition, yet correspondence suggests they are being treated as a party with established rights.

In the interests of transparency and proper planning procedure, we respectfully request clarification regarding the following:

Whether EMP has provided documentary evidence confirming ownership of the pipeline asset;
Whether EMP currently holds any easement rights over the land in question, or any legal authority to assert control;
Whether EMP’s claims are based on anticipated future acquisition, and if so, whether any formal agreements with Mainline Pipeline Limited exist;
How EMP’s claimed status as a stakeholder in the planning process is justified in the absence of demonstrated legal rights.

We recognise that it is routine for third parties to request engagement with developers; however, where ownership and legal rights are not yet established, it is essential that any requests are treated as preliminary and not as confirmation of enforceable constraints on development.

While engagement by third parties is routine and appropriate, it is crucial that claims of rights and ownership are verified. Given that the land in question is understood to be partly publicly / privately owned, clarity regarding the legal position of EMP’s claims will ensure decisions are based on evidence, not assertion, and help maintain public confidence in the planning process.

We trust that the Council will continue to adopt an evidence-based approach and seek appropriate verification before treating EMP’s claims as a confirmed constraint.

Response date: 23 April 2026

Response: Response to this request - 3985546.

Reference: 3986868

Subject:

In order to establish whether any outstanding statutory notices which relate to the following matters subsist in relation to the following property other than those revealed in a response to any other enquiry

15 Heron Crescent, Cotgrave, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG12 3TQ

Response date: 22 April 2026

Response: Response to this request - 3986868.

Disclosure Log